It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
He and his family did Bushiness with and for the US for decades, he was an information source and is two timing wannabee tyrant, the fact is he wasn't going to get a trial, He knows too much, you probably notice that I have used the present tense when referring to him, that is because I truly believe that he is sipping mojitos somewhere and working on a tan. There was no examination done no more confirmation of liquidation farther than "We got him" and a picture that could well be a double. it's a toss up, others believe he's dead, still there are others that will attest to him being alive and well, ala Abdulmutallab, however one thing is for certain whether he deserved a trial or not, he would never have gotten one...because as I said he knew far too much for the TPTB to let him openly tell his story in a court of international law for thew world to hear and record.
edit on 12/08/11 by LanternOfDiogenes because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Every human has the right to face their accuser and defend themselves as they are accused. No matter the magnitude of the crime. This is the American way. The constitutional way. Guilt without proof, is justice without law.

We as Americans have a duty to uphold our constitution. To give any suspect in a crime, their day in court. Our Country is built on a just and fair foundation according to our constitutional and moral convictions as keepers of liberty. We have a civil responsibility to set an example across the planet. To follow our constitution and to show the world that our American Values no matter the strain or resistance that we are bound by a promise that is sealed by our constitution to uphold the law of the land no matter how trying it may be. As our constitution may not be fair as a matter of opinion it is still the foundation of our country and must be followed at all times as this is the strength and integrity of our country. If we stray from our moral beliefs as a country we are doomed as a nation.


With that being said Yes he should have gotten a trial. No matter how painful it would have been to give Bin Laden a fair trial to see his face on TV in any kind of court room. He had the unequivocal right to face his accusers, and his accuser to face him. I also believe that the Victims Families and the American People had a right to hear what he had to say. To give those that will live with the events of 911 some closure.

Justice is not a sometimes thing, it's an all the time thing.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
that's b.s. navy seals are cool as ice. combat for them is at another level. a 7 second firefight for them is an eternity because how focused and trained they are.

they walk in to a room and instantly analyze and assess the danger.

what's the point anyways. what jury in the united states would acquit osama bin laden. how would you like to be the one to explain to the world, new york and the victims of 9/11 on why you voted not guilty because of lack of evidence and have osama walk out and hop on a plane to afghanistan.

the judge would have to dismiss the case because of extreme prejudice. the fact is the american justice system checks and balances could not permit a trial.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ka119
 


Nope. No trial was deserved. Trials are a gentleman's way of handling criminal infractions in civilized society. War is not very civilized, nor is it a criminal matter to be handled by a court. Al Qaeda didn't have an unsightly build up of parking tickets, they declared a war.

Now they've got one.

Too late to backtrack and say "Oops, just kidding guys. we really only meant to set a bag of dog crap on fire on your doorstep, so you can just take us to court now instead of fighting the war we declared."



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by ka119
 


Nope. No trial was deserved. Trials are a gentleman's way of handling criminal infractions in civilized society. War is not very civilized, nor is it a criminal matter to be handled by a court. Al Qaeda didn't have an unsightly build up of parking tickets, they declared a war.

Now they've got one.

Too late to backtrack and say "Oops, just kidding guys. we really only meant to set a bag of dog crap on fire on your doorstep, so you can just take us to court now instead of fighting the war we declared."




I suppose burials at sea are not very gentlemanly

Are you sure they declared war? Food for thought.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I recall poll here on ATS shortly after the raid and a good number of respondents believed he was eliminated because he knew to much.A trail would have opened a can of worms.I do think he was entitled to a trail we as a nation proclaim that we are the shining example of justice for the world,we claim to have the greatest legal system.A trail and conviction of OBL would have won universal acclaim.As an earlier post said if the OS of 9/11 is true then why not go for it?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bftroop
I suppose burials at sea are not very gentlemanly



I've no problems at all with feeding him to the crabs.



Are you sure they declared war? Food for thought.


Yes.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by mike dangerously
 


But a trial under WHOSE laws? Remember, US law does not extend across the world. Think that a trial in his adopted homeland of Pakistan, which was harboring him, would have turned out according to US law? Then there are legal issues with kidnapping foreign nationals and bringing them to the US for trial under our laws.

For those claiming that he didn't get a trial because he "knew too much" or "would have named names" or that he would have "spilled the beans": what was there that a trial would have provided that 10 years of freedom didn't that would cause him to suddenly roll over on these illusory "handlers"? If he had "top secret knowledge to divulge", what kept him from doing so for that entire 10 year period which would have entirely changed under trial conditions?

Seriously, some folks read too many spy novels.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I find this whole construct of Tim Osman/OBL rather fantastic and the official stories of his supposed demise strain credulity, to put it mildly.

It´s interesting that this construct wasn´t wanted for 9/11 by the FBI,because of lack of evidence according to them. So, designation of this bogeyman was a political matter. I don´t know how much adherence to law and justice you can expect from Washington. Truth about anything? Well, given their record your dog is a way more reliable source.

Did this construct deserve a trial? Of course. That´s due process of law.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Our government may be stupid at times - the recent Barry Bonds fiasco comes to mind - but they aren't going to try someone when they know they can't win AND when they know it will blow up big time on them. This is one of those cases, as they had no case against UBL for 9/11, only the USS Cole and the embassies. That won't satisfy the people who think UBL had a part in 9/11 so they did what they did. Maybe, if you believe the UBL death story.Faked it, whatever, it matters not as he's gone and no trial with "evidence" can happen, therefore no lies can be exposed.

Not dissimilar to Jefferson Davis after the Civil War IMO. They knew if they put him on trial they would lose because the states had the right to secede.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
Nazis were enemy combatants, were they not?

They got trials.


Not while the war was still ongoing. Once the war was over, they were no longer "enemy combatants". No war = no "combatants".

Only when the war was over were they "defendants" instead of "combatants".



edit on 2011/9/16 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ka119
 


Yes he did deserve a trial. No one should be above or below the law. The man was executed, then I guess dead men dont talk...



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Rashard Mendenhall would star and flag this



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Of course he did deserve a trial. Everyone deserves a trial. That is the ground stone for democracy, that is what proves that Americans are more advanced in protecting human rights than Arabs (as they claim to be), and that is what makes a difference in this world : respecting other people's rights, even though they might respect absolutely no one's rights. That's how I see it, at least.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I don't think TPTB could afford to put him on trial. If he had been given the chance to defend himself, he would have brought down the US government. Even a private trial would have exposed the ones who were in on it to outsiders. Strange how that body was dumped so fast and then the guys who got him died in an 'accident'.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ka119
I stumbled upon THIS article today on MSN and it made me wonder.. Did Osama Bin Laden deserve a trial?

Michael Moore makes a good statement:

"My point is that the way we show the world that we're different is that we give even the most heinous person their day in court," Moore said.


Where Elisabeth Hasselbeck states:

"You're telling me Osama bin Laden deserves a trial?" an increasingly angry Hasselbeck asked. "Where? In New York City? Absolutely not! How dare ... and why, because Casey Anthony's trial went so well?


Personally, I know that had I been a member of SEAL Team Six and was the first one in the room, I would have shot him too. The thing we don't always realize as civilians is that in combat, adrenaline is surging like never before, when you actually see and acquire your target a whole new burst is let through your bloodstream. Im sure whether we like to admit it or not, the majority of us would have shot him on the spot as well.

Anyways, I thought this might bring up some good discussion. Have at it.

edit: I just wanted to reiterate and make clear that I DO believe that he deserved a trial, however I can see under the circumstances and the sheer pressure of the mission how he was shot.

edit on 15/9/2011 by kosmicjack because: spelling error

edit on 12/10/2010 by ka119 because: (no reason given)


if western democracies want to continue their arrogance, their "holiness", at least they should respect the foundations of their legal systems and bring "enemies" to trial.
Of course this won't happen as these "enemies" might tell stories we don't want the rest of the world to hear. Better to murder them.

(and i appreciate your argument that it's probably a totally different reality when you're a trooper entering enemy space... chances are high someone gets hurt)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Bin Laden probably was an illegal combatant with no legal rights. Or maybe a non-existent entity of war? I don't know but I'm sure there are some good title that means that person is incompatible to the law.Just like the kids in GITMO.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
In an Ideal world a trial would have been preferred but we dont live in an ideal world.

If the USA had taken OBL into custody the first thing every jihadi sympathiser would do is start kidnapping westerners wherever they could and demand a prisoner exchange. Of course the USA wouldn't release him and those hostages would be killed.

It was too dangerous to have him alive & in custody. Its not even worthy of debate tbh. There was no choice he needed to be taken out and i think the US gov handled it perfectly right down to the disposal of the body. Good job


p.s if Gadaffi is caught he will go on trial. There isnt a significant danger of keeping him in custody. Where possible western countries will choose that route.
edit on 16-9-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ka119
 


Ofcoarse he did, to say he didn't is idiotic. Are you asking if it was wrong to shoot him though? No not if he was a legitimate threat to the soldiers. If he really was so important though keeping him alive would be an invaluble source of information.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the 9/11 planner and ring leader,and i'm pretty sure even when water boarded he didn't say Bin Laden did it!

He even went so far as to say that he aproached Bin Laden with his plans for the twin towers but Bin Laden didn't want any part of it.

Why are many on this board still linking Bin Laden to that terrible day in history?You do know Khalid planned it all?(well apart from putting demolitions in the towers and building 7 he must have got help there!)

Or are you believing the video and audio fakes put out by intel guys working in the shadows to continue this pointless and expensive war on terror with a bad guy you can all focus your rage on.

I get the impression he died ages ago long before Seal Team 6 got to him,but lets say they did get to him then they should have taken him alive so he could stand trial for crimes he realy did do.

Trouble is upon looking at history the american war on terror machine doesnt like taking high ranking prisoners(excluding saddam),very strange realy considering the info they could extract from a fully breathing target

Zarqawi was killed by two 500 pound bombs dropped by USAF F16's in a safe house in Iraq.Special Forces were close by lighting up the target with lasers,yet they would rather demolish the house rather than the troops storm in with flash bangs and bring the tango out alive?I bet any number of the SF in the area would have been more than willing to get close and personal

I get the feeling that AQ is being directed and used by long term western field agents,they realy dont know they are the puppets being played so well.When there use in no longer needed they are eliminated to break the link between them and the players



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join